The rapid expansion of crypto-assets has made it necessary for states to develop legal frameworks in this field. Due to the borderless nature of the internet, crypto-assets are no longer limited to local markets. They have become part of a broader financial, technological and legal ecosystem affecting capital markets, payment systems, consumer protection, anti-money laundering rules and private law.

The European Union responded to this need by adopting the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, commonly known as MiCA. MiCA was adopted as Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 and aims to establish a uniform regulatory framework for crypto-asset markets across the European Union.

Turkey introduced its first main statutory framework on crypto-assets through Law No. 7518 on Amendments to the Capital Markets Law. This law amended the Turkish Capital Markets Law No. 6362 and introduced key concepts such as crypto-assets, wallets, crypto-asset service providers and platforms.

This article provides a general comparison between MiCA and Turkish Law No. 7518, focusing particularly on the legal definitions used in both frameworks. It is based on the academic analysis of MiCA and Law No. 7518 from a comparative perspective.

The General Approach of MiCA

MiCA is a comprehensive regulation that does not only deal with the trading of crypto-assets. It also regulates the issuance of crypto-assets, white papers, crypto-asset service providers, market integrity and investor protection.

In general terms, MiCA classifies crypto-assets under three main categories: asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens and other crypto-assets that do not fall under these two categories. It also introduces detailed rules for crypto-asset service providers, including authorization, organizational requirements, custody obligations, conflicts of interest and market abuse rules.

Therefore, MiCA is not merely a technical regulation. It is also a financial markets regulation that seeks to ensure legal certainty, financial stability and investor protection within the European Union.

For countries such as Turkey, which closely follow European Union legislation, MiCA serves as an important reference point.

The Role of Law No. 7518 in Turkish Crypto-Asset Law

Law No. 7518 is important because it introduced the first statutory definition of crypto-assets in Turkish law. Under the amended Turkish Capital Markets Law, crypto-assets are defined as intangible assets that can be created and stored electronically by using distributed ledger technology or similar technology, distributed through digital networks and capable of expressing value or rights.

This definition is similar to the definition of crypto-assets under MiCA. However, Turkish law uses the expression “intangible assets”, while MiCA defines crypto-assets as a digital representation of a value or a right.

This difference may have important consequences under Turkish private law. The concept of an intangible asset is known in Turkish law, especially in relation to intellectual property rights, trademarks, patents, know-how and other non-physical assets. Therefore, Turkish law appears to provide a more concrete legal characterization than MiCA in this respect.

The Main Difference Between MiCA and Turkish Law No. 7518

MiCA is much more detailed than Law No. 7518. It regulates issuers, crypto-asset service providers, asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, market abuse, supervisory authorities and investor protection in a broad and systematic manner.

By contrast, Law No. 7518 mainly establishes the basic legal framework. Many detailed rules are left to secondary legislation to be issued by the Turkish Capital Markets Board.

This means that Turkish crypto-asset law is still developing. Law No. 7518 should be seen as the first step of a broader regulatory process rather than a complete crypto-asset code.

Crypto-Asset Service Providers

Under Turkish law, a crypto-asset service provider includes platforms, institutions providing crypto-asset custody services and other entities that may be designated by secondary regulations as providing services in relation to crypto-assets.

MiCA takes a slightly different approach. It defines crypto-asset service providers with reference to the professional provision of crypto-asset services to clients. In this sense, MiCA is more activity-based, whereas Turkish law is more actor-based.

This distinction is important. Under MiCA, the key question is what type of crypto-asset service is being provided. Under Turkish law, the regulatory focus is more directly placed on platforms, custody institutions and other entities designated by the Capital Markets Board.

Wallets Under Turkish Law

One of the notable features of Law No. 7518 is that it expressly defines the term wallet. Under Turkish law, a wallet refers to software, hardware, systems or applications that allow crypto-assets to be transferred and that enable the online or offline storage of crypto-assets or the private and public keys relating to them.

MiCA does not provide such a direct and separate definition of a wallet. This shows that Turkish law gives special importance to the concept of wallets, particularly in relation to custody, private keys, transfer authority and potential disputes.

In practice, the question of who controls the private key or where the crypto-assets are stored may become central in civil, criminal and regulatory disputes. Therefore, the inclusion of a wallet definition in Turkish law may be significant for future legal interpretation.

Stable Crypto-Assets, Asset-Referenced Tokens and E-Money Tokens

The general reasoning of Law No. 7518 refers to stable crypto-assets as assets that aim to maintain a stable value by referring to money, commodities, crypto-assets or combinations of such assets.

MiCA, however, does not use the term “stable crypto-asset” as a main legal category. Instead, it distinguishes between asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens.

Asset-referenced tokens are crypto-assets that aim to maintain a stable value by referring to one or more official currencies, commodities, crypto-assets or other values or rights. E-money tokens, on the other hand, are crypto-assets that aim to maintain a stable value by referring to a single official currency.

This distinction is closely connected to the European Union’s concern for monetary sovereignty and financial stability, especially in relation to the Euro. In Turkey, the future regulation of crypto-assets linked to the Turkish Lira may become a separate and important policy issue.

NFTs and the Difference in Regulatory Approach

NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, occupy a special position in both MiCA and the Turkish regulatory approach.

MiCA generally excludes crypto-assets that are unique and not fungible with other crypto-assets from its scope. This means that MiCA focuses primarily on the technical characteristics of NFTs, such as uniqueness and non-fungibility.

The general reasoning of Law No. 7518 does not directly use the term NFT. However, it refers to crypto-assets that create proof of ownership similar to copyright over photographs, videos, sounds, works of art and similar items. This shows that the Turkish approach focuses more on the intellectual property and ownership aspects of NFTs.

Therefore, MiCA approaches NFTs mainly from the perspective of technical uniqueness, while the Turkish approach appears to emphasize ownership and intellectual property considerations.

Crypto-Asset Platforms

Turkish law defines platforms as entities where crypto-asset purchase and sale, initial sale or distribution, exchange, transfer and custody-related transactions are carried out.

MiCA, on the other hand, does not use the word platform as a stand-alone concept in the same manner. Instead, it refers to the operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets as one of the regulated crypto-asset services.

This difference reflects the broader structural distinction between the two frameworks. Turkish law defines the platform as an actor, while MiCA focuses more on the activity of operating a trading platform.

In practice, this distinction may affect how a business is classified, what type of authorization it needs and which obligations it must comply with.

Conclusion

When MiCA and Turkish Law No. 7518 are compared, it is clear that Turkish law has been influenced by the European regulatory model. However, the Turkish framework is still more limited and less detailed than MiCA.

Law No. 7518 is an important starting point because it formally recognizes crypto-assets under Turkish statutory law. Nevertheless, further regulation is needed in areas such as crypto-asset classifications, issuance procedures, white paper requirements, custody obligations, market abuse, NFTs, stable crypto-assets and investor protection.

Secondary regulations issued by the Turkish Capital Markets Board have already started to develop this framework. However, crypto-asset law remains a fast-changing field. For this reason, Turkish law will likely continue to evolve in line with market needs, technological developments and international regulatory standards.

Crypto-assets should not be seen only as investment instruments. They may also affect payment systems, digital ownership, capital markets, international trade and private law. Therefore, the legal regulation of crypto-assets is expected to become increasingly important in the coming years.